2026:CGHC:7082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 110 of 2026 NADIM MOHLE Smt. Archana Mishra (In Person) W/o Shri R. N. Mishra Aged About 56 Years Through Authorized Representative, R. N. Mishra S/o Late R. S. Mishra, 60 Years L I G- 636, C.G.H.B. Colony, Tatibandh Raipur, C.G. 492099 ... Petitioner versus

1 - Andhra Bank Through Authorized Officer / Chief Manager Fafadih Branch, Raipur, C.G. 492001.

2 - Union Bank Of India Through Authorized Officer / Chief Manager, Fafadih Branch, 557/13 Timber Market Road, Near Dr. Mishra Hospital, Fafadih Raipur, C.G. 492001, Mobile No. 93249-85713 Email-

Ubin0804932@Unionbankofindia.Bank ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : None in two rounds.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

09/02/2026

1. Today, the matter is listed on personal request of petitioner-in- person.

It appears that the petitioner has challenged the recovery notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “SARFAESI Act, 2002”). The remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, reported in (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 579, while dealing with a similar issue, in paragraph 31, held as under:–

“31. The only reasoning that could be seen from the impugned order¹ given by the learned Division Bench of the High Court is as under: (M.V. Ramana Rao case, SCC OnLine TS paras 11-15)

"11. It is true that under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has the alternative remedy against the impugned order by filing appeal before the appellate Tribunal. However, having regard to the fact that the writ petition is pending before this Court for quite some time and also considering the fact that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, petitioner would be left without a remedy to ventilate his grievance, we deem it fit and proper not to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of not availing the alternative remedy.

12. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides that any person including a borrower who is aggrieved by the action of secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act may file an application thereunder. The Supreme Court has held time and again that the Tribunal exercises wide jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, even to the extent of setting aside an auction-sale. In the instant case, we are consciously not referring to the merit of the case. All that we are concerned is whether for whatever reason a person who is aggrieved in law should be left remediless. In the instant case, the petitioner had invoked his remedy by filing securitisation application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The application was pending for three years before the Tribunal. From the docket order dated 21-9-2020, we find that a junior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had reported that the matter was settled out of Court and therefore, leave was sought for withdrawing the securitisation application which was accordingly granted.

13. When the settlement did not materialise, petitioner went back to the Tribunal for revival of the securitisation application which was however dismissed on the ground that version of the petitioner did not deserve b acceptance.

14. On thorough consideration of the matter we are of the view that dismissal of the miscellaneous application of the petitioner by the Tribunal does not appear to be justified.

15. Though subsequent developments may have a bearing on the grant of ultimate relief to a litigant but the same by itself cannot denude the adjudicating authority of its power to adjudicate the grievance raised by the aggrieved person which it otherwise possess."

3. Taking into consideration the fact